|
|
knock on wood, but, when it comes to the reliability issue, I can't complain of my O-320. yes, I am building an -8 with a 20B, but I also fly a -6A with close to 1000 hrs on a O-320. it has taken me to mt. Denali, the Bahamas, across the entire US 8 times, and even on the last trip home from the rotary round-up where the weather shut down all around me in the middle of Nevada and I was thinking how damn cold it was going to be after I landed on one of those snow speckled dirt roads, up to 16,000' to do some vfr on top back to "anywhere but here" as I told flight following. I build my new plane for the learning experience, but also recognize the facts of a certified, air-cooled engine. I also had that plane flying in 2 1/2 years, since it has all been figured out. I have bet my life many times on the o-320 and vangrunsven. some day I believe the 20B will match it's record, but there are a lot of tests to do first.
Kevin Lane Portland, OR
e-mail-> n3773@comcast.net
web-> http://home.comcast.net/~n3773
(browse w/ internet explorer)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Smith, Randy" <randy.smith@intel.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:05 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Experimental Twin (was Limp home, etc...)
My rejection of the Defiant is based on
1. The lack of builder support. This is a perception on my part as I
have "only heard" that RAF no longer supports one-off plans builders.
2. Too expensive to operate when compared to the Mk-IV. (including fuel
and insurance)
3. It doesn't fit my mission profile. By that I mean that I will
occasionally fly long distances over water and will therefore
occasionally need the supposed "ultimate" reliability. The rest of the
time, that extra engine is just extra weight making airplane noises.
4. I just don't like it, and I don't want to build one. Not gonna make
me, either! :-) How's that for being "defiant?"
But still I think you are missing my point. I never set out to find the
"ultimate reliability" in the first place. I only wanted to see if I
could improve the reliability of the airplane that I was going to build.
The answer to that question still may be no. And that's ok. That will
lead to some level setting of my expectations as a result. And I do
appreciate the locater service that Jesse provided and I'm sure it will
be a good fit for someone.
-Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Bill
Dube
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 10:49 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Experimental Twin (was Limp home, etc...)
I really am not interested in building a defiant though. The MkIV
will
be sufficient.
Interesting. A couple of days ago, you were all gung ho about
ultimate reliability. You then reject the suggestion of a home-built
twin
because it would be beyond your budget and "they don't exist." Next,
Jesse
finds a partially-built Defiant (with a pair of rotary engines) that is
bargain priced. This meets your stated requirements EXACTLY. Especially
on
a tight budget.
If my goal was to build an airplane to fly long distances over
the
ocean, this is, without a doubt, the ideal airplane. I would jump all
over
this. It is likely that, given the head start, this airplane would be
faster and much cheaper to build than the Cozy you are clinging to (but
have not actually started.)
What gives?
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|